On Jan 8, 2014, at 10:54 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for the review, Scott. I didn't see it until I has pulled the lever on 
> -04 to deal with a few of Mark's comments.
> 
I'd rather hear negative reviews of bad ideas than no reviews of good ones. 


> On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:58 AM, Scott Rose <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> 1. naming convention to help distinguish between signing and encryption key 
>> certs (for enterprises that use separate certs for encrypting and signing).  
>> It helps reduce the size of the SMIMEA RRset a bit, but admittedly minor 
>> compared to the size of an X.509 cert.
> 
> The slight saving of space also introduces a new, significant failure mode, 
> namely that if the person listing the cert in the DNS gets the type wrong 
> then the receiver can't use it. I'd say "no" on this one.

Admittedly it doesn't save much.  

> 
>> 2. a new CU value for "revoked" to indicate that this user's certificates 
>> have been revoked.  
> 
> We considered things like this for TLSA, and the WG seemed very hesitant to 
> have the DNS be used as a second, unofficial revocation mechanism. For 
> instance, what would it mean for the DNS to say that an S/MIME cert is 
> revoked, but when the user pulls a fresh CRL, the cert isn't there? The best 
> we might do is to have a signal for "go refresh your revocation view" in the 
> DNS, but that seems like very marginal value.
> 

Our thinking was with local trust anchors where places may not keep their CRL's 
up to date or even make it available.  I hope it's not optimistic in thinking 
that new DANE uses will encourage people to keep CRL's current.


>> There are some signed/encrypted email projects rolling out now that are 
>> using CERT RR's or combinations of SRV RR's and LDAP servers.  Having 
>> something like SMIME would be an improvement, but the spec needs to be 
>> finalized.  
> 
> And Jakob and I apologize for the long lag since the earlier draft. We too 
> would like to see this finished.
> 

Count me as a reviewer.

Scott

> --Paul Hoffman

_______________________________________________
dane mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane

Reply via email to